Sony Opposes Trademark For ‘Naughty Cat’ Because ‘Cat’ Is Too Similar To ‘Dog’

from the garfield-v.-odie dept

There’s an old joke that dog and cat owners may be familiar with that goes something like this. What is the difference between dogs and cats? With a dog, you give it a comfortable place to live, give it lots of love and attention, feed it food and water, and it therefore assumes you must be God. With a cat, you give it a comfortable place to live, give it lots of love and attention, feed it food and water, and it therefore assumes it must be God. If there’s any point to that joke at all, it’s that cats and dogs are very different creatures, with different reputations, and are often seen as diametrically opposing forces as a cliche.

But if you’re Sony, dogs and cats are so similar that they can create trademark confusion, apparently. In the stated effort to protect its trademarks for one of its gaming studios, Naughty Dog, Sony has opposed the trademark application for a tiny foreign mobile game studio with two App Store games. That studio’s name is Naughty Cat.

Sony Interactive Entertainment has filed a Notice of Opposition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) against the “Naughty Cat” trademark application filed by a company called Naughty Cat Co., Limited.

This Hong Kong-based company has two apps listed on the App Store, both gambling “games” that promise to reward users with real cash. That’s a world away from the likes of The Last of Us and Uncharted, but that hasn’t stopped Sony’s lawyers from baring their teeth and barking angrily at their feline competitor.

In documents reviewed by IGN, Sony’s lawyers argue that the Naughty Cat trademark is “confusingly similar” to the Naughty Dog trademark it owns “in overall commercial impression and connotation.”

Notably, Sony does not have a trademark registered for the word “naughty” that I can find. Therefore, the commonality of that first word in both studio names is not itself directly infringing and can only be cited as contributing to the “overall commercial impression and connotation” of the marks. Instead, Sony seems to rely on the idea that cats and dogs are very similar in the minds of consumers, primarily because they are pets.

“The first, dominant element of the two marks, NAUGHTY, is identical,” Sony said. “The second elements, DOG and CAT, are highly similar in that both refer to house pets and are likely to mislead consumers into believing, mistakenly, that Naughty Cat is affiliated with SIE and/or Naughty Dog or that its goods are licensed or approved by SIE and/or Naughty Dog.”

“Registration of Applicant’s Mark will lead the public to conclude, incorrectly, that Applicant is or has been affiliated or connected with SIE, and/or that Applicant’s goods provided under Applicant’s Mark are or have been authorized, sponsored, endorsed, or licensed by SIE. Issuance of any registration to Applicant for the proposed mark will result in damage to SIE and the public.”

I’m trying to envision an argument against the idea that this is not absurd, but I’m failing. There is no suggestion that the company logos and branding are in any other way similar. The games they make are wildly different. Unless you accept that cats and dogs are similar in the minds of the average consumer, or even morons in various states of hurry, then there is no concern over public confusion.

Here’s what it all looks like in the App Store itself. If you think these listings in this manner are somehow going to bring to mind Sony’s studio for the consumer, please comment as such below so I can yell at you directly.

I suspect instead that this is a simple matter of Sony’s lawyers having entirely too much time on their hands, or seeking to bill for more hours. Or perhaps this is a result of permission culture run amok at this particular company, leading to a posture of draconian protectionism over common sense.

But what I know for certain is this: cats and dogs are not the same, nor are they particularly similar.

Filed Under: likelihood of confusion, naughty, naughty cat, naughty dog, trademark
Companies: sony

National Park Service Invites Americans To Disappear ‘Disparaging’ History From Public Places

from the think-positive...-or-else dept

The Trump Administration(s) aren’t simply content to declare satire dead. Trump’s reappearance in the Oval Office demands we dig up the corpse and desecrate it.

And while we’re desecrating that corpse, why not desecrate a few national landmarks? That’s the pitch from the National Park Service under Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. Spring-boarding off Trump’s revisionist history-enabling “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” executive order, Park Service staffers are being forced to ask Americans to tell them what history should be remembered and what should be forgotten.

Under the heading “Encouraging Public Participation,” [comptroller Jessica] Bowron’s memo states: “All NPS units are required to post signage that will encourage public feedback via QR code and other methods that are viable.”

An example image of a sign leaked to NPR for Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield in Missouri, the site of the second major battle of the Civil War, ahead of its potential installation, asks visitors to identify “any signs or other information that are negative about either past or living Americans or that fail to emphasize the beauty, grandeur, and abundance of landscapes and other natural features.” (The sign also asks for feedback concerning areas and services that need repair or improvement.)

The obvious goal here is to bury things that white Americans did to non-white people and to reinstate other white people (mostly Confederate figures) to the positions of glory they never deserved. People can pretend it means something else, but that’s all this is: yet another effort to obscure the actions of racists and bigots so the government can comfortably pretend these historical figures (and their actions) are worthy of public praise and celebration. The whiter and straighter they are, the better. That’s how it’s gone everywhere else Trump has shoved his nationalistic brand of quasi-patriotism down the federal government’s throat and it’s no different here.

If you somehow still can’t be convinced this is nothing more than a little park signage cleanup that isn’t meant to vanish the more shameful parts of American history, here’s another fun data point you might consider before sounding off in the comment section:

The US Army said Tuesday it will restore the names of seven Army bases that previously honored Confederate leaders.

“We are also going to be restoring the names to Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, Fort Rucker, Fort Polk, Fort A.P. Hill, and Fort Robert E. Lee,” President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday at Fort Bragg, which was briefly known as Fort Liberty until the administration changed it back earlier this year. “We won a lot of battles out of those forts. It’s no time to change.”

Trump is saying the quiet part out loud here. These bases are all being “renamed” but really, they’re not. Trump is telling it like it is: these bases will revert to their Confederate army-honoring names. The military, however, is going to pretend that’s not what’s actually happening.

According to the Army’s Tuesday announcement, Fort Barfoot, a Virginia base previously named after Confederate General George Pickett, will be named in honor of 1st Lt. Vernon W. Pickett, a soldier who received the Distinguished Service Cross for his heroism during World War II.

[…]

A Virginia fort once named for Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee will carry the namesake of Pvt. Fitz Lee, who received the Medal of Honor for his service during the Spanish-American War.

[…]

Georgia’s Fort Eisenhower will revert back to Fort Gordon, this time honoring Medal of Honor recipient Master Sgt. Gary I. Gordon, who during the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu, Somalia, defended wounded crew members at a helicopter crash site.

The base […] was previously named after Confederate General John Gordon…

These are the acts of petulant children. These are not the acts of grown men in positions of power. They want to honor people who actively fought against their own countrymen just so they could continue to enslave their fellow human beings.

And that’s not all. The renamed forts also erase women and Black service members. There are more examples in the article, but these are the names being removed to “honor” Pvt. Fitz Lee, who’s only being honored because his last name is the same as General Robert E. Lee’s. This isn’t a new low for this administration, but it’s definitely near the bottom.

[Fort Lee] was renamed Fort Gregg-Adams after Lt. Gen. Arthur Gregg and Lt. Col Charity Adams in 2023. Gregg helped desegregate the Army, including at Fort Lee, while Adams, in 1944, “was selected to command the first unit of African-American women to serve overseas,” according to the congressional naming commission. Her service was chronicled in the 2024 film “The Six Triple Eight.”

Fuck these racist pieces of shit. I really don’t know what’s holding the Trump Administration back from issuing an executive that will “restore Christian faith” by the ceremonial placement of burning crosses in unbelievers’ yards.

Filed Under: army, bigotry, censorship, donald trump, doug burgum, erasing history, national park service, racism

Against Ironic Detachment

from the why-moral-seriousness-matters dept

I’m going to say something that will make many of you deeply uncomfortable: our culture has confused ironic detachment with intelligence. We’ve mistaken cynicism for sophistication, distance for depth, and the refusal to commit to anything for wisdom itself.

This is killing us.

Not metaphorically. Not in some abstract cultural sense. It is literally destroying our capacity to respond to the crises that define our moment. Because while we perfect our poses of detached cleverness, people with deadly serious intentions are reshaping the world according to their vision.

Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And ironic detachment is moral cowardice dressed up as intellectual superiority.

Let me be clear about what I mean. Ironic detachment isn’t genuine critique—it’s defensive armor. It’s the reflex that allows you to comment on everything while committing to nothing. It’s the stance that lets you mock both sides of every conflict while accepting responsibility for none of its outcomes.

You see it everywhere. The journalist who treats democratic collapse like entertainment, crafting clever observations about the “theater” of authoritarianism without ever stating plainly that democracy is worth defending. The intellectual who responds to moral clarity with knowing smirks, as if the ability to see complexity were the same as wisdom. The friend who greets every urgent concern with “well, it’s complicated” or “both sides have valid points” or “this is all just politics anyway.”

These people have convinced themselves that their detachment signals sophistication. That their refusal to take moral stands demonstrates superior understanding. That their immunity to “naive” concerns about right and wrong proves their intellectual maturity.

They’re wrong.

What it actually demonstrates is a profound failure of moral imagination. An inability to conceive of situations where clarity matters more than cleverness. A retreat from the responsibilities that come with living in a world where our choices have consequences.

Because here’s what ironic detachment really offers: the comfortable illusion that you’re above the fray while remaining safely within it. It lets you feel superior to those who “fall for” caring about things while never having to defend anything yourself. It’s the perfect stance for people who want to seem engaged without actually risking anything.

Moral seriousness is different. Moral seriousness forces you to face consequences. To choose clearly. To stake out positions that require genuine courage rather than performative intelligence. It demands that you say what you believe even when saying it costs you something.

And yes, this makes people uncomfortable. Because moral seriousness isn’t simplistic—it’s demanding. It isn’t arrogant—it’s responsible. It requires you to act as if your judgments matter, as if your choices have weight, as if the world depends on people like you making decisions about what’s worth defending and what isn’t.

The ironically detached hate this. They prefer the safety of eternal meta-commentary, the endless deferral of commitment, the pose that says “I’m too smart to be fooled by caring about anything.”

But here’s what they miss: intelligence without moral commitment is just sophisticated paralysis. Nuance without the capacity for judgment is just elaborate confusion. The ability to see complexity in everything is worthless if it never leads to clarity about anything.

So let me ask you directly: if moral seriousness bothers you—if you find yourself recoiling from people who speak with clarity about right and wrong—what does that say about you?

Does it say you’re sophisticated? Or does it say you’ve trained yourself to avoid the discomfort that comes with taking responsibility for your own moral judgments?

Does it say you understand nuance? Or does it say you’ve become so committed to seeing all sides that you’ve lost the capacity to choose any side?

Does it say you’re intellectually mature? Or does it say you’re using intelligence as a shield against the demands of living in a world where things actually matter?

I know this is uncomfortable. Good. It should be.

Because while you’ve been perfecting your ironic distance, people with no such hesitations have been busy. They don’t waste time wondering whether their convictions are sophisticated enough. They don’t apologize for moral clarity. They don’t treat their own beliefs as just another position in an endless debate.

They understand something the ironically detached have forgotten: that power goes to people who believe in something. That the world belongs to those willing to commit fully to their vision of what it should become. That democracy doesn’t survive on clever commentary but on citizens willing to say plainly what matters, what is true, and what is at stake.

The authoritarians aren’t ironic. They’re deadly serious about their goals. They don’t hedge their commitments or apologize for their clarity. They don’t treat their own power grabs as just another interesting development in the ongoing political show.

They understand that ironic detachment is the perfect ideology for people who want to feel important without actually mattering. For people who want to seem engaged without risking anything. For people who prefer the comfort of eternal spectatorship to the responsibility of actual participation.

This is why a culture built on irony will crumble in crisis. Because when everything is equally interesting, nothing is truly important. When all positions are equally valid subjects for commentary, no position becomes worth defending. When commitment itself becomes naive, only the uncommitted remain to watch the committed reshape the world.

We don’t need more cleverness. We need more clarity. We don’t need more sophisticated commentary on the complexity of our challenges. We need more people willing to name what threatens us and act accordingly.

We need citizens who understand that moral seriousness isn’t just stylistic—it’s existential. That democracy survives not on ironic detachment but on people willing to say what they believe and defend what they value.

The center cannot be held by people who refuse to acknowledge there’s a center worth holding. The flood cannot be pushed back by people who treat every rising tide as just another fascinating phenomenon. The wire cannot be walked by people who prefer watching others fall to taking the risk themselves.

Ironic detachment promises you safety through distance. But there is no safe distance from the collapse of the systems that make your detachment possible in the first place. There is no commentary booth elevated enough to escape the consequences of living in a world where serious people with serious intentions are making serious choices about the future.

The pose of sophisticated neutrality is itself a choice. The stance of ironic distance is itself a commitment. The refusal to take sides is itself taking a side—the side that benefits from your passivity, from your paralysis, from your conversion of moral clarity into epistemological complexity.

So choose. Not between simple answers to complex questions, but between engagement and evasion. Between responsibility and performance. Between the hard work of moral judgment and the easy comfort of ironic observation.

Choose to speak plainly about what matters. Choose to commit to what you believe. Choose to risk the discomfort of being wrong rather than the cowardice of never being anything.

Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And the world belongs to people who take these simple truths seriously enough to build something real upon them.

The revolution is moral seriousness. The rebellion is choosing clarity over cleverness. The resistance is saying what you mean and meaning what you say.

Every minute of every day.

Remember what’s real.

Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. Originally published at his Notes From the Circus.

Filed Under: ironic detachment, irony, morality, reality, truth, view from nowhere

LA Dodgers Claim An ICE Raid Was Deterred While The Men In Masks Claim Otherwise

from the maybe-just-act-like-regular-law-enforcement dept

The cops are rioting and the military is swarming. That’s how things are going in Los Angeles, despite anything resembling a “violent protest” being confined to a few blocks near federal buildings in the downtown area.

ICE, meanwhile, continues to carry out Trump’s mass deportation plans by acting like drug cartel members. Agents wear masks, refuse to identify themselves, drive unmarked cars without license plates, and generally do whatever they can to dodge accountability.

When someone demands something of others and claims it’s a law enforcement matter, those on the receiving end of those demands are free to ask questions. If those on the delivery end refuse to answer them (or show the proper paperwork), they’re free to go fuck themselves. And those on the receiving end of demands from masked men who won’t identify themselves are free to speculate as to which government agency employs them.

The narrative belongs to a baseball team at the moment, as NBC News reports.

The Los Angeles Dodgers on Thursday blocked federal immigration agents from entering their stadium as dozens of ICE protesters gathered outside the venue, the team said.

The baseball organization said on social media that federal agents working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrived at the stadium Thursday and “requested permission to access the parking lots.”

“They were denied entry to the grounds by the organization,” the Dodgers said. Their evening game against the San Diego Padres went ahead as scheduled.

ICE tried to reclaim the narrative with a short post on XTwitter, which only said this:

This whole "imbroglio" could be avoided if ICE agents were required to wear uniforms and identify themselves, a tradition in law enforcement for the past few centuries

— Bobby Big Wheel (@kleinman.bsky.social) 2025-06-20T01:48:43.435Z

False. We were never there.

But that’s not true. They were near the entrance to the stadium parking lots. That much has been captured on (digital) film. CNN’s report not only shows officers just outside of the entrance to the parking area, but the protesters gathered in response to their appearance.

The longer excuse doesn’t make any more sense than the flat denial.

“This had nothing to do with the Dodgers. CBP vehicles were in the stadium parking lot very briefly, unrelated to any operation or enforcement,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement.

This simply isn’t true.

The activist said they saw two people being detained at a Home Depot and followed the vehicles in which the detainees were taken away to near Dodger Stadium.

They saw a CBP agent, the activist said, whom they had also seen and spoken to at the Home Depot. “I asked what they were doing. He responded they bring the detainees there (near Dodger Stadium) to process them,” the activist said. “They conduct their investigation there without public interference, (…) that they can’t do it in the Home Depot parking lot because the public makes it too dangerous.”

So, this was related to an “operation or enforcement.” Whether or not immigration officers attempted to enter the parking area and were rebuffed by Dodgers staff is still an open question, but ICE/CBP officers were near the parking lot entry and were there specifically for reasons related to an “enforcement effort.”

The larger question is who’s lying about what. It doesn’t do anything for the Dodgers to go public with a lie about an interaction with federal officers. It makes perfect sense for ICE to lie about its actions because that might sideline some protesters who probably never would have expected the federal government to carry out a raid at sports stadium.

But I wouldn’t put that past ICE. And there’s no way any officer will have a judicially issued warrant for an action like this because no federal judge would grant a search warrant for a stadium or its parking lot.

And, if ICE wants to ensure it’s not mistaken for other law enforcement agencies (like CBP), its officers could take off the masks, put the insignia back on their uniforms, and provide identification when asked for it. If they want to continue to pretend raids carried out in public are still somehow undercover activities, then they can deal with the confusion the agency is deliberately causing.

Even if the Dodgers organization is completely mistaken about what happened at the stadium, it’s still making its voice heard:

In partnership with the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Dodgers have committed $1 million toward direct financial assistance for families of immigrants impacted by recent events in the region.

[…]

“What’s happening in Los Angeles has reverberated among thousands upon thousands of people, and we have heard the calls for us to take a leading role on behalf of those affected,” said Stan Kasten, President & CEO, Los Angeles Dodgers. “We believe that by committing resources and taking action, we will continue to support and uplift the communities of Greater Los Angeles.”

The Trump administration’s anti-immigrant efforts are making it far more enemies than friends. Trump’s ever-so-brief walkback of ICE raids makes that much perfectly clear. But after seeing more people attend “No Kings” rallies than his self-indulgent military parade, the vengeful autocrat went back to his usual vindictive ways. If Trump didn’t like protests against cops during his last term, he’s going to fare much worse now that the protests are targeting him specifically. Unfortunately, it will be America as a whole that will pay the price for daring to push back against encroaching fascism.

Filed Under: dhs, ice, mass deportation, tricia mclaughlin
Companies: los angeles dodgers

Daily Deal: The Complete Circuit Design And Simulation Super Bundle

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The Complete Circuit Design and Simulation Super Bundle has 19 courses on electronics, 3D simulation, and PCB builds. You’ll learn what tools you need to set up your own home lab, how to build your own Arduino board, how to solder, how to create a customized printed circuit board, and more. It’s on sale for $60.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Supreme Court Blesses Human Trafficking With No Explanation In Stunning Abandonment Of Rule Of Law

from the shameful-evil dept

The Supreme Court just gave the Trump administration a green light to traffic humans to random countries around the world—including war zones where migrants face torture, slavery, or death. And they did so while offering literally zero explanation for why this is legal or constitutional.

In a shadow docket ruling yesterday, the Court stayed a lower court order that required basic due process protections for people being shipped to third countries. No analysis of the complex legal issues. No acknowledgment that they’re rewarding the Trump regime for repeatedly violating court orders. Just: “go ahead and traffic people to Libya.”

This isn’t hyperbole. We’re talking about the US government grabbing people—some who entered legally seeking asylum—and shipping them to countries where they’ve never been, don’t speak the language, and face credible threats of violence. Some of those destination countries are actively selling migrants into slavery.

This non-ruling will go down in history as one of the most shameful and horrific rulings from the Supreme Court. We’re talking Dred Scott/Plessy v. Ferguson/Korematsu bad. An obviously horrific decision that attacks human rights and basic due process for no reason… and totally without explanation.

There is a righteous dissent from Justice Sotomayor that excoriates the majority for just how evil this decision is, and I was tempted to just post all of that as this post, but I fear this one requires some explanation.

The Background: How We Got To State-Sanctioned Human Trafficking

The legal backdrop makes this even more shocking. Just last month, the Supreme Court (for the second time) told the Trump DOJ it had to provide some level of “reasonable” due process to those being shipped to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. For a brief moment, it seemed like even the conservatives recognized Trump’s lawlessness.

This case is a bit different. It involves people already deemed deportable. The question: can the US ship them literally anywhere in the world? Under existing law, the answer was yes—but with many limits and with guaranteed basic due process. Specifically, people facing “third country removal” had the right to a “reasonable fear” hearing where they could explain why being shipped to whatever random country the US picked might get them killed. And such removals were only supposed to take place if it was impossible to send them to countries they actually had a connection to.

This is actually important. While the issue of the US trafficking Venezuelans to El Salvador has been well covered, that was a deal with the Salvadoran government. There’s a separate issue of the US randomly shipping off people to a long list of dangerous countries, places where the people being shipped likely know no one, don’t know the language, and may be thousands of miles from anyone they do know. And some of those countries that the US is shipping people to are either war zones or engaged in selling migrants into slavery.

Even if you think immigration violations justify deportation, shipping people to countries where they face torture or slavery sounds like a crime against humanity. And many of these people entered legally seeking asylum—Trump has simply been revoking their status, another move the Court blessed a few weeks ago.

The Case: Government Defies Court Orders, SCOTUS Rewards Them

In this case (DHS v. D.V.D.), District Judge Brian Murphy had ordered DHS to provide basic due process before shipping people around the globe. The government’s response? It ignored him. Repeatedly. Remember Judge Murphy getting annoyed that DHS was shipping men to South Sudan? That was in violation of this restraining order. When he caught them lying about their removals, they kept lying.

Judge Murphy worked diligently to protect constitutional rights. The government thumbed its nose at him. And now the Supreme Court has rewarded that lawlessness.

The government not only gets away with ignoring Judge Murphy’s earlier order, it gets to effectively continue doing so. With no explanation as to why. This isn’t just horrific for due process and the people being trafficked this way, it’s a fucking insult to Judge Murphy who worked diligently to protect rights in this case.

Sotomayor’s Blistering Dissent Calls Out The Majority’s Cowardice

In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the Government took the opposite approach. It wrongfully deported one plaintiff to Guatemala, even though an Immigration Judge found he was likely to face torture there. Then, in clear violation of a court order, it deported six more to South Sudan, a nation the State Department considers too unsafe for all but its most critical personnel. An attentive District Court’s timely intervention only narrowly prevented a third set of unlawful removals to Libya.

Rather than allowing our lower court colleagues to manage this high-stakes litigation with the care and attention it plainly requires, this Court now intervenes to grant the Government emergency relief from an order it has repeatedly defied. I cannot join so gross an abuse of the Court’s equitable discretion.

Basically, the government is doing something really obviously horrific and evil here, a lower court—somewhat heroically—stepped in to help, and the Supreme Court is saying “oh no, go ahead with the evil stuff.” It’s fucking crazy.

Sotomayor notes that these kinds of “third country removals” (i.e., to a country not of their origin nor where they have connections, but only “is willing to accept people the US removes”) are quite “burdensome” on the individuals involved and therefore extremely limited by law. That is, Sotomayor (unlike the majority of the court) recognizes that Congress has put significant conditions on such human trafficking, which the Trump regime is gleefully ignoring.

Noncitizens facing removal of any sort are entitled under international and domestic law to raise a claim under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100–20, 1465 U. N. T. S. 113. Article 3 of the Convention prohibits returning any person “to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” The United States is a party to the Convention, and in 1998 Congress passed the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act to implement its commands. The Act provides that “[i]t shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.” §2242(a), 112 Stat. 2681–822, codified as note to 8 U. S. C. §1231. It also directs the Executive to “prescribe regulations to implement” the Convention. §2242(b), 112 Stat. 2681–822. Those regulations provide, among other things, that “[a] removal order . . . shall not be executed in circumstances that would violate Article 3.” 28 CFR §200.1 (2024).

The Pattern of Lawlessness

Sotomayor then details how DHS repeatedly ignored court orders not to send men subject to deportation to specific countries where they faced credible risks of significant harm. Sometimes it appeared to just outright ignore them. Other times it played games with courts, such as claiming that a temporary restraining order (TRO) against DHS removing someone to a certain country didn’t apply because the Defense Department, not DHS, handled the removal to that country.

As she notes:

The Government thus openly flouted two court orders, including the one from which it now seeks relief. Even if the orders in question had been mistaken, the Government had a duty to obey them until they were “‘reversed by orderly and proper proceedings.’” Maness, 419 U. S., at 459 (quoting United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 293 (1947)). That principle is a bedrock of the rule of law. The Government’s misconduct threatens it to its core.

So too does this Court’s decision to grant the Government equitable relief. This is not the first time the Court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last. See Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___ (2025) (per curiam). Yet each time this Court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.

The sum total of the Roberts Court’s legacy is going to be “he completely wrecked any respect for the judiciary and the rule of law by making a mockery of it.” Each lawless move like this just makes and more people see the courts as illegitimate. And that’s doubly embarrassing after all of the effort Judge Murphy went through at the district court to make things work properly, despite a defiant Trump regime.

Emergency Relief For Whom?

And this raises the big question: the Supreme Court’s emergency docket is supposed to be used to put an immediate stop to something where there is imminent harm if they don’t. But here, the Court is doing the opposite. The irreparable, and possibly catastrophic, harms are being allowed to move forward, with no evidence of any real harm to the US. As Sotomayor notes:

In light of the Government’s flagrantly unlawful conduct, today’s decision might suggest the Government faces extraordinary harms. Yet even that is not the case. Rather, following a recent trend, the Court appears to give no serious consideration to the irreparable harm factor. See, e.g., id., at ___ (slip op., at ___); SSA v. AFSCME, 605 U. S. ___ (2025). Without a showing that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable harm, however, this Court’s midstream intervention is inexcusable.

Besides the facially absurd contention that the Executive is “irreparabl[y]” harmed any time a court orders it temporarily to refrain from doing something it would like to do, see Application for Stay of Injunction 37, the Government has identified no irreparable harm from the challenged preliminary injunction.

The DOJ tried to claim irreparable harm because Judge Murphy told the government it could (voluntarily!) conduct the reasonable fear interviews in Djibouti (where the plane carrying some of the men was forced to land). Yet, as Sotomayor points out, that particular issue wasn’t even appealed by the DOJ and it was an option granted to the government after it requested it as an alternative to bringing the men back to the US (which it should have been forced to do because flying the men to South Sudan violated the existing TRO):

Instead, the Government locates the source of its injury in the District Court’s efforts to provide relief to the class members in South Sudan. Id., at 37–39. That argument is misguided. First, the District Court’s remedial orders are not properly before this Court because the Government has not appealed them, nor sought a stay pending a forthcoming appeal. Second, the court adopted the narrowest possible remedy, allowing the Government itself to choose whether it would return the class members to the United States or provide them with process where they are held. Finally, the Government is in every respect responsible for any resulting harms. Had it complied with the preliminary injunction, no followup orders would have been necessary, nor would the Government have faced a “sudden need . . . to detain criminal aliens” abroad. Id., at 39. It does not face such “need” today, as it can return the noncitizens it wrongfully removed at any time. No litigant, not even the Government, may “satisfy the irreparable harm requirement if the harm complained of is self-inflicted.”

But the plaintiffs in this case clearly face very real and immediate harms:

For their part, the plaintiffs in this case face extraordinary harms from even a temporary grant of relief to the Government. A. A. R. P. v. Trump, 605 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 4) (recognizing detainees’ interests against removal are “particularly weighty”). The Government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The episodes of noncompliance in this very case illustrate the risks. Thirteen noncitizens narrowly escaped being the target of extraordinary violence in Libya; O. C. G. spent months in hiding in Guatemala; others face release in South Sudan, which the State Department says is in the midst of “‘armed conflict’” between “‘ethnic groups.’” N. 2, supra. Only the District Court’s careful attention to this case prevented worse outcomes. Yet today the Court obstructs those proceedings, exposing thousands to the risk of torture or death.

When put that way, it feels like the kind of thing a Supreme Court is supposed to stop, not reverse a lower court on without explanation.

Sotomayor then points out the pure insanity of this decision:

Given its conduct in these proceedings, the Government’s posture resembles that of the arsonist who calls 911 to report firefighters for violating a local noise ordinance.

The Legal Arguments Are Nonsensical Too

Even worse, she notes, if you get past the procedural stuff, the merits argument by the government is nonsensical as well. She calls out some of it as “absurd.”

Ultimately, the Government says, the plaintiffs in this case object to their removal. So, they should bring their challenges in a petition for review of an order of removal. Yet the Government also claims that it need not issue or reopen any orders of removal before deporting someone to a third country. That is part of the problem plaintiffs seek to remedy: Without an applicable order of removal, they have no way to raise their claims under the Convention. In the end, then, the Government’s view is that the only way to challenge its refusal to provide orders of removal is to appeal those (nonexistent) orders. That is absurd.

Even worse, under the government’s argument, these plaintiffs get no due process rights at all—which would also be a totally absurd scenario:

Even if the Government could establish that its enjoined actions (of providing no notice or process) are integral to the “operation” of §1231(b), that in turn would raise a “‘serious constitutional question.’” Webster v. Doe, 486 U. S. 592, 603 (1988). That is because, as the Government reads it, §1252(f )(1) threatens to nullify plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights entirely. Recall that the Government claims it may remove noncitizens in the space of 15 minutes. See supra, at 4. Such noncitizens cannot practicably file individual lawsuits to vindicate their due process rights. After all, they will not know of the need to file a claim until they are on a bus or plane out of the country. Nor will their counsel, whom the Government refuses to notify. The Government can hardly expect every deportable noncitizen to file a pre-emptive lawsuit. Thus, if §1252(f )(1) precludes classwide vindication of the right to notice and due process under these circumstances, then it effectively nullifies those rights.

It is that kind of lawlessness that the Supreme Court blessed yesterday.

WITHOUT EXPLANATION.

Then there’s the Administrative Procedure Act issue, where Sotomayor again points out that the government’s interpretation of the law effectively wipes out large segments of the statute:

That leaves, finally, the merits of plaintiffs’ underlying APA and due process claims. Begin with the statutory and regulatory scheme governing removal. In the Government’s view, once a noncitizen has been found removable, she can effectively be removed anywhere at any time. That view would render meaningless the countless statutory and regulatory provisions providing for notice and a hearing. See, e.g., 8 U. S. C. §1229(a)(1) (“In removal proceedings under section 1229a . . . written notice . . . shall be given . . . to the alien or to the alien’s counsel of record”); 8 CFR §1240.10(f ) (2024) (in removal hearing, the Immigration Judge “shall . . . identify for the record a country, or countries in the alternative, to which the alien’s removal may be made”); §241.8(e) (when a removal order is reinstated after a noncitizen illegally reenters the country, noncitizen who “expresses a fear of returning to the country designated in that order” must be given an interview (emphasis added)); 8 U. S. C. §§1228(b)(1)–(3) (noncitizens determined removable due to felony conviction must be given notice under §1229(a) and 14 days “to apply for judicial review”); 8 CFR §238.1(b)(2) (requiring notice to noncitizens removable due to felony convictions).

The Government asserts that it need only comply with these provisions once, for the first removal proceeding, and can disregard them afterwards. The consequence of that view is that what happens in removal proceedings simply does not matter. The Government could designate any location in its initial order, lose before the immigration judge, decline to appeal, and promptly thereafter deport the noncitizen to a country of the Government’s choosing. Indeed, that is precisely what happened in O. C. G.’s case.

In other words, the Trump regime is deliberately defying the law:

Where did the Government find the authority to disregard Congress’s carefully calibrated scheme of immigration laws? It does not argue the third-country removal statute provides it. See Application for Stay of Injunction 13. Instead, the Government simply falls back on the Executive’s implied authority in this field. Yet “the President must comply with legislation regulating or restricting the transfer of detainees” even in “wartime.”

But, Sotomayor points out, you can’t just ignore the law like that:

It is a “‘cardinal principle of statutory construction,’” moreover, that statutes should be construed so that “‘no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.’” TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U. S. 19, 31 (2001). Here the Government construes the statute’s lack of “a particular process for carrying out” third-country removals, Application for Stay of Injunction 13, as conveying near-unlimited power to the Executive, rendering the remaining statutory scheme “‘void . . . or insignificant.’” TRW, 534 U. S., at 31. To make this claim is to ignore the clear statutory command that notice and a hearing must be provided. See supra, at 15. The Government cannot show a likelihood of success on plaintiffs’ statutory and regulatory claims, nor can it defend the lawfulness of its no-notice removals.

Even if Trump can ignore Congress, Sotomayor wonders how the Supreme Court can possibly bless his regime ignoring the Fifth Amendment’s promise of due process:

Turning to the constitutional claim, this Court has repeatedly affirmed that “ ‘the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law’ in the context of removal proceedings.” J. G. G., 604 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3); A. A. R. P., 605 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3). Due process includes reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 314 (1950). Of course the Government cannot avoid its obligation to provide due process “in the context of removal proceedings,” J. G. G., 604 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3), by skipping such proceedings entirely and simply whisking noncitizens off the street and onto busses or planes out of the country.

[….]

The Government barely disputes these basic principles. Instead, it obfuscates the issue by asserting that some (perhaps “many”) members of the class should be treated as if they never entered the United States. Application for Stay of Injunction 33–34. Yet even if that were true as to some class members, it could show at most that the class might be too broadly defined, not that the Government is likely to succeed on the constitutional merits.

As she concludes, due process is a core component of the rule of law. And here the majority is tossing it in the wood chipper with nary an explanation.

The Due Process Clause represents “the principle that ours is a government of laws, not of men, and that we submit ourselves to rulers only if under rules.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 646 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). By rewarding lawlessness, the Court once again undermines that foundational principle. Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled. That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable.

Some of the plaintiffs in the case quickly asked Judge Murphy for a new TRO and—interestingly!—he quickly responded that such an order is not necessary because (as Sotomayor noted above) the specific orders regarding the men illegally shipped towards South Sudan, and currently held in Djibouti, was not appealed! This ruling may apply to others, but the current order regarding these men stands:

The Court’s May 21, 2025 Order on Remedy, Dkt. 119, remains in full force and effect, notwithstanding today’s stay of the Preliminary Injunction. DHS v. D.V.D., No. 24A1153, slip op. at 12 (S. Ct. Jun. 23, 2025) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (“[T]he District Court’s remedial orders [were] not properly before [the Supreme] Court because the Government has not appealed them, nor sought a stay pending a forthcoming appeal.”).

I imagine the DOJ will challenge that, and tragically the Supreme Court may be on their side.

What This Means Going Forward

The Supreme Court just taught the Trump administration—and every future administration—a valuable lesson: you can ignore court orders with impunity as long as you appeal to the right justices. Why bother following district court rulings when you know the Supreme Court will bail you out without even requiring an explanation?

This isn’t just about immigration. It’s about the fundamental principle that government officials must follow court orders until they’re properly overturned. By rewarding DHS’s blatant defiance, the Court has opened the floodgates. What’s to stop Trump from ignoring the next judge who tries to block his policies? Or the judge after that?

And that shouldn’t take away from the fact that the human cost will be immediate and devastating. Right now, people are sitting in detention centers knowing they could be shipped to Libya, South Sudan, or any other country the administration picks—with no meaningful chance to explain why that might get them killed. Some will disappear into war zones. Others will be sold into slavery. And five or six justices couldn’t be bothered to write a few paragraphs explaining why this is legal.

This decision completes the Roberts Court’s long-term transformation from a judicial body into a partisan enabler of authoritarian rule. Each time they reward lawlessness with their assent, they make clear that the rule of law only applies to those without political connections to the right people.

Judge Murphy tried to do his job. He followed the law, protected constitutional rights, and demanded basic due process. For his efforts, he got a Supreme Court that essentially told him to shut up and get out of the way while the government traffics humans around the globe.

That’s not justice. That’s not law. That’s just power protecting power while people die.

Filed Under: brian murphy, crimes against humanity, deportation, dhs, donald trump, due process, dvd, human trafficking, sonia sotomayor, supreme court

CBS Execs Have Second Thoughts About Paying Trump Bribe Money After California Threatens Bribery Inquiry

from the quid-pro-quo,-but-shit-all-around dept

When last we checked it with the feckless execs at CBS/Paramount, they were preparing to pay Donald Trump tens of millions of dollars to settle a completely bogus lawsuit designed to bully the media giant into compliance. CBS desperately wants the Trump administration to sign off on their pointless $8 billion merger with Skydance. Trump desperately wants CBS to stop doing any real journalism and kiss his ass.

They’ll both likely get their wish, in the end. But in the interim there’s been an interesting wrinkle.

In late May, the California Senate opened an inquiry into whether this settlement would technically violate state bribery laws. One hearing on the matter examined “whether the company breached fiduciary duties owed by Paramount board members to shareholders, misused corporate funds vulnerable to shareholder derivative litigation, or violated federal anti-bribery laws and California’s Unfair Competition Law.”

That inquiry was apparently enough to at least temporarily give CBS executives cold feet, insiders told the New York Post. The right wing outlet can’t be bothered to mention that the lawsuit is utterly baseless, or that California’s inquiry is directly responsible for a pause in proceedings (that might make California sound good). But it is clear that the specter of possible accountability has CBS lawyers worried:

“A potential $35 million settlement of President Trump’s lawsuit against Paramount’s CBS affiliate has been delayed after the company’s management continued to fear a potential legal backlash, The Post has learned.”

The Trump administration originally demanded $50 million to settle its baseless lawsuit and approve the Skydance merger. They’ve been negotiating over how pathetic CBS is willing to be since last fall. At one point CBS was even considering running a series of free Trump administration advertorials to get in the authoritarian administration’s good graces.

If CBS executives had backbone, they’d cancel the merger and tell the Trump administration to go fuck itself. They’d have plenty of legal and popular support.

But billionaire majority owner Shari Redstone, currently battling thyroid cancer, is poised to make $2 billion off the deal and is keen to head to the exits. Folks at CBS with any actual principles have already been leaving the company. Media moguls’ demand for consolidation under Trump 2.0 has been relentless as the administration destroys whatever’s left of U.S. media consolidation limits.

It’s unclear if this California inquiry actually has teeth, and I’d suspect this grotesquely corrupt exchange gets consummated eventually. Skydance execs poised to take ownership of CBS appear to be even bigger Trump ass kissers than the outgoing CBS execs. The end result will, one way or the other, be a company even-more terrified of doing any real journalism critical of our increasingly unpopular mad king.

Filed Under: bribery, california, consolidation, donald trump, journalism, media, mergers, shari redstone
Companies: cbs, paramount